offered instruction in California

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1967(See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 718 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] ; Sloan v. Stearns, 137 Cal.App.2d 289, 300 [ 290 P.2d 382 ].) Plaintiff’s proposed instruction was clearly argumentative in nature.

1967(See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 718 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] ; Sloan v. Stearns, 137 Cal.App.2d 289, 300 [ 290 P.2d 382 ].) Plaintiff’s proposed instruction was clearly argumentative in nature.

1967(See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 718 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] ; Sloan v. Stearns, 137 Cal.App.2d 289, 300 [ 290 P.2d 382 ].) Plaintiff’s proposed instruction was clearly argumentative in nature.

1967(See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, 227 Cal. App.2d 675, 718 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] ; Sloan v. Stearns, 137 Cal.App.2d 289, 300 [ 290 P.2d 382 ].) Plaintiff’s proposed instruction was clearly argumentative in nature.

2025If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” ’ [Citations.] It is not sufficient to show the alleged errors may have had some conceivable effect on the trial’s outcome; the defendant must demonstrate a ‘reasonable probability’ that absent the errors the result would have been different. [Citations].” ( Mesa, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1008.) Here, the court offered the defense two alternative remedies: (1) exclusion of the video from the trial already underway, or (2) a

2025If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” ’ [Citations.] It is not sufficient to show the alleged errors may have had some conceivable effect on the trial’s outcome; the defendant must demonstrate a ‘reasonable probability’ that absent the errors the result would have been different. [Citations].” ( Mesa, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1008.) Here, the court offered the defense two alternative remedies: (1) exclusion of the video from the trial already underway, or (2) a

2023(See People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1534 [the defendant’s struggle with several officers within a short period of time constituted a continuous course of conduct not requiring unanimity instruction]; People v. Jefferson (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [no unanimity instruction required where the defendant, using two different knives in two different locations within a period of 10 to 15 minutes, slashed at police officers because the acts occurred during “continuous effort on the part of the officers to disarm” him].) Our conclusion is further supported by the offered defense.

2023(See People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1534 [the defendant’s struggle with several officers within a short period of time constituted a continuous course of conduct not requiring unanimity instruction]; People v. Jefferson (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [no unanimity instruction required where the defendant, using two different knives in two different locations within a period of 10 to 15 minutes, slashed at police officers because the acts occurred during “continuous effort on the part of the officers to disarm” him].) Our conclusion is further supported by the offered defense.

2022“All issues . . . are subject to the rule of forfeiture, and a defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court will generally result in the appellate court’s refusal to consider it.” (People v. Navarro (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1347, fn. 9 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856 .) Here, the trial court offered defense counsel the opportunity to question the jurors about the misconduct and both declined to do so.

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1988Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1986) 182 Cal. App.3d 462, 465-466 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 203 ].) DISCUSSION I WHETHER THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF'S ACCIDENT OCCURRED WAS UNSUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND THUS UNPROTECTED BY THE LIMITED IMMUNITY CONFERRED BY CIVIL CODE SECTION 846 The terms of section 846, construed literally, preclude liability on the part of defendant for ordinary negligence.

1988Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1986) 182 Cal. App.3d 462, 465-466 [ 227 Cal. Rptr. 203 ].) DISCUSSION I WHETHER THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF'S ACCIDENT OCCURRED WAS UNSUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND THUS UNPROTECTED BY THE LIMITED IMMUNITY CONFERRED BY CIVIL CODE SECTION 846 The terms of section 846, construed literally, preclude liability on the part of defendant for ordinary negligence.

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1988(See Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Foundation Constructors, Inc. (1981) 128 Cal. App.3d 583, 589 [ 177 Cal. Rptr. 268 ].) "And where defendants are the moving parties, as here, they must either negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or state a complete defense. ( Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 331, 338 [ 138 Cal. Rptr. 670 ].) To avoid a summary judgment, plaintiff must show a material triable issue of fact with respect to the offered defense or the negated essential element. ( Ibid. ) `[N]o amount of

1984In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeal stated that “[t]he provisions of section 5811, which permit the board to allow costs as between the parties in proceedings ‘before the appeals board,’ are not applicable to appellate proceedings.” ( 46 Cal.App.3d at p. 108, fn. 2 .) The court offered no analysis in support of this dictum.

1981The trial court was not required to correct the offered instruction. ( Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1958) 50 Cal.2d 153, 158 [ 323 P.2d 391 ].) D.

1981The trial court was not required to correct the offered instruction. ( Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1958) 50 Cal.2d 153, 158 [ 323 P.2d 391 ].) D.

1975Co. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011-1012 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) The trial court properly refused to give the offered instruction. g) Instruction 11 (the California State Park and Recreation Commission’s Statement of Policy).

1975Co. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011-1012 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 695 ].) The trial court properly refused to give the offered instruction. g) Instruction 11 (the California State Park and Recreation Commission’s Statement of Policy).

1974Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311, fn. 2 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ].) 3 Appellants’ opening brief [] states that this instruction was “offered by Mrs. Schroeder.” The clerk’s transcript shows that it was “Defendant’s Instruction No. 2.” If that statement is correct, defendants cannot now complain that an instruction requested by them was given. 4 The offered instruction states: “A shipper may by written contract with a carrier, agree to a limitation stated therein upon the amount of the carrier’s liability in case the property carried is lost or damaged.

1974Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 311, fn. 2 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 444 P.2d 481 ].) 3 Appellants’ opening brief [] states that this instruction was “offered by Mrs. Schroeder.” The clerk’s transcript shows that it was “Defendant’s Instruction No. 2.” If that statement is correct, defendants cannot now complain that an instruction requested by them was given. 4 The offered instruction states: “A shipper may by written contract with a carrier, agree to a limitation stated therein upon the amount of the carrier’s liability in case the property carried is lost or damaged.

1966The court held there could “be no room for doubting that the plaintiff was an original contractor.’’ (P. 614; italics supplied.) In Hihn-Hammond, Lumber Co. v. Elsom (1915) 171 Cal. 570, 574 [ 154 P. 12 , Ann.Cas. 1917C 798], the court offered this analysis: “Section 1194 [as then enacted] divides the liens which can be asserted against property under the mechanic’s lien law into four classes, to wit, laborers, materialmen, subcontractors, and original contractors.

1966The court held there could “be no room for doubting that the plaintiff was an original contractor.’’ (P. 614; italics supplied.) In Hihn-Hammond, Lumber Co. v. Elsom (1915) 171 Cal. 570, 574 [ 154 P. 12 , Ann.Cas. 1917C 798], the court offered this analysis: “Section 1194 [as then enacted] divides the liens which can be asserted against property under the mechanic’s lien law into four classes, to wit, laborers, materialmen, subcontractors, and original contractors.

1958Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ] ; Carruthers v. Cunha, 133 Cal.App.2d 91, 99 [ 283 P.2d 384 ] ; Leeper v. Nelson, 139 Cal.App.2d 65, 68 [ 293 P.2d 111 ].) An offered instruction on the rights of one entering an intersection upon a green signal was qualified by the court’s addition of the statement that such a driver “may not ignore danger which is apparent to him.’’ Also, to an instruction as to one’s right to assume that others will obey the law, the court added the usual qualification that this right does not exist when it is or reasonably should be apparent that this duty is not go

1958Co., 32 Cal.2d 157, 167 [ 195 P.2d 416 ] ; Carruthers v. Cunha, 133 Cal.App.2d 91, 99 [ 283 P.2d 384 ] ; Leeper v. Nelson, 139 Cal.App.2d 65, 68 [ 293 P.2d 111 ].) An offered instruction on the rights of one entering an intersection upon a green signal was qualified by the court’s addition of the statement that such a driver “may not ignore danger which is apparent to him.’’ Also, to an instruction as to one’s right to assume that others will obey the law, the court added the usual qualification that this right does not exist when it is or reasonably should be apparent that this duty is not go

1958(People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ].) Offered instructions three, four, five and six relate to included offenses and were also unnecessary as the evidence was that appellants were guilty of robbery.

1958(People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ].) Offered instructions three, four, five and six relate to included offenses and were also unnecessary as the evidence was that appellants were guilty of robbery.